State v. Dawson, 2017 Ohio 2833

Background

On Dec. 14, 2015, Thomas Dawson (hotel guest) drank heavily at hotel/adjacent steakhouse bar after taking a prescription sleeping pill; staff refused further service for intoxication.
Between ~11:18–11:25 p.m. alarms and motion sensors at Hyde Park Grille were triggered; police arrived at 11:31 p.m. and found forced entry, extensive interior damage, burners left on, and a shirtless Dawson wandering in the kitchen.
Dawson was taken to the hospital for confusion; he later admitted breaking the front-door glass with a planter and pulling down a picture frame but denied causing all damage and claimed memory gaps.
Indicted on multiple counts; one B&E and one vandalism count were dismissed pretrial; jury convicted on remaining counts, assessed restitution of $7,499, and the court sentenced him to nine months in prison.
Dawson raised eight appellate assignments alleging (inter alia) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to seek intervention-in-lieu, evidentiary exclusions and failures to subpoena/authenticate gas-station receipt/video, failure to seek continuance, improper impeachment, prosecutorial misconduct, right-to-be-present violations, and improper judicial assignment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Dawson)	Held
1) Counsel ineffective for not pursuing ILC	ILC is discretionary; State not required to consent; court would likely deny given history	Counsel should have requested ILC regardless of State's plea offer; denial prejudiced Dawson	No ineffective assistance: Dawson failed to show he met statutory ILC criteria or reasonable probability court would grant it (Strickland standard)
2) Exclusion/authentication of gas-station receipt & video	Exclusion proper without foundation/subpoena; timestamps unreliable	Receipt/video would show Dawson at gas station and undermine timeline; counsel ineffective for not subpoenaing custodian	No reversible error or prejudice: testimony about the receipt/video was elicited; physical items would be cumulative and timestamps uncertain
3) Counsel ineffective for not seeking continuance after late discovery	State played limited portions; counsel reviewed the portions State intended to use	More time would let counsel use body-cam, alarm log, gas-video to rebut timeline; unknown jail calls	No prejudice shown: portions used by State were reviewed and speculative benefit from delay not established
4) Evidentiary/impeachment error and prosecutorial misconduct	Cross-examination of prior alcohol-related trouble and prosecutor’s rebuttal were within discretion; no objection to prosecutor’s remarks	State improperly impeached with prior-bad-act inquiry and referenced facts outside record in closing	Issues forfeited by failure to object; no plain-error argument made; trial court’s rulings within discretion
5) Right to be present when court answered jury questions	Court must ensure defendant/counsel present at critical stages	Record silent; absence presumed	No reversible error: appellant must show record affirmatively indicates absence and prejudice; silence cannot be interpreted as error
6) Sentencing judge improperly assigned	Assignment rules must be strictly followed	Judge lacked authority because assignment paperwork filed after sentencing	Certificate of Assignment (even if filed later) authorized temporary assignment; judge had jurisdiction

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (prejudice prong of Strickland in Ohio)
State v. Massien, 125 Ohio St.3d 204 (ILC statutory framework and court discretion)
State v. Noling, 98 Ohio St.3d 44 (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
State v. Amburgey, 33 Ohio St.3d 115 (scope of prior-conviction impeachment on cross-exam)
State v. Hale, 119 Ohio St.3d 118 (defendant’s right to be present; requirement that record affirmatively show absence)